'Hurt Locker' Earns Best-Picture Academy Award

[Hissyspit]

Source: Associated Press

`Hurt Locker' earns best-picture Academy Award

By DAVID GERMAIN, AP Movie Writer – 8 mins ago
LOS ANGELES – The Iraq War drama "The Hurt Locker" has won best picture and five other prizes at the Academy Awards, its haul including best director for Kathryn Bigelow.

Bigelow is the first woman in the 82-year history of the Oscars to earn Hollywood's top prize for filmmakers.

Among those Bigelow and "The Hurt Locker" beat are ex-husband James Cameron and his sci-fi spectacle "Avatar." Bigelow and Cameron were married from 1989-91.

First-time winners took all four acting prizes: Sandra Bullock as best actress for "The Blind Side"; Jeff Bridges as best actor for "Crazy Heart"; Mo'Nique as supporting actress for "Precious"; and Christoph Waltz as supporting actor for "Inglourious Basterds."

Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_oscars

[Smarmie Doofus]

1. Haven't seen the film. Might have been nice if the moviemakers...

... had , in addition to acknowledging American servicemen in Iraq and Afghanistan, mentioned the long suffering natives of those unfortunate lands as well.

[Captain Hilts]

5. That comes across also. nt

[onehandle]

2. Too bad, considering Avatar's message.

And every day more and more eye raising stuff comes out about the producers of Hurt Locker.

[Captain Hilts]

4. Avatar had a trite plot. Terrific movie, but a formulaic script that's been done too many times. nt

[Iowa]

9. Yep. Avatar was "Dances with Wolves" except with blue people and in the future.

[Smarmie Doofus]

16. That's *exactly * what it was.

And I'll take the gorgeous cinematography of DWW over that digitalized crap any day of the week.

[Codeine]

25. Another poster pegged it as "Pocahontas Meets The Smurfs."

:rofl:

[lunatica]

20. A formula that obviously works.

Since it's based on historic truth regarding invaders and the invaded. The message still needs to be delivered.

But I don't care about the Oscars. It's raison d'etre is counter productive. Making one movie the 'best' is ridiculous and infantile. But granted, it's the American way. Always the contest and only one gets to be the best. I happen to think a whole slew of movies are the best.

[Captain Hilts]

21. FYI: a lot of other countries have 'best' film awards. nt

[lunatica]

22. I still think it's stupid

[Captain Hilts]

24. Well, I agree that a 'best' film award is stupid, but it's not a purely US thing.

Comparing comedic performances with dramatic ones, etc.

A lot of it is stupid.

[lunatica]

26. The Oscars is about watching the famous walk the red carpet

It's glitz, which I don't mind as long as we don't have to pretend that it's a contest about which movie is 'best' or what who's acting is 'best'.

[Javaman]

28. Actually no, that's for the public, what the oscars do is generate more money for the

distributors. You have no idea what goes on behind the scenes regarding what distributors will do to get a nomination.

An oscar nom or a win translates into huge profits for the production companies and the distributors.

Plus, it helps not only the director and stars get better parts, it also helps the crew members get more work.

I worked in Film for a great many years and the glitz and glamor of it all is only about 5% of what is actually going on.

It's a business, just like anything else and I would more associate it with Wall Street than with "art".

Actors, directors, movies, etc are commodities to be traded and sold. A dead stock aka old star winning an award (Micky Rourke), could suddenly become the new flavor of the week. Driving up his value and any movie they are attached to.

You can replace any film critic with some market analyst. You can replace box office totals with a stock sheet.

It's all the same. Money.

[calimary]

44. Agreed.

I covered entertainment (Hollywood-based) for the A.P. for years and know this to be absolutely true. Kathryn Bigelow's asking price just went up, along with everybody associated with "The Hurt Locker". Even Jeremy Renner, while not a best-actor winner, will still get a bump. Well-deserved in his case, too. Sandra Bullock, all the winners - their agents have all been busy since the winners were announced last night - figuring up how much more their clients will be worth now, and for how long. Sometimes the Oscar bump lasts (and you make some real long-term hay out of it) and sometimes it doesn't.

[Javaman]

27. A good formula, but it doesn't aways translate into oscar wins.

Formulaic movies are nice, but they aren't what you might call, "gripping".

[BuddhaGirl]

31. "Avatar and its Holistic Promise"

from Ode Magazine:


"For a box office hit, Avatar is the most successful movie ever. I was one of the last to help James Cameron’s creation reach that tipping point as it took me several weeks to get myself to the movie theater. I have never felt drawn to science fiction because - for reasons not clear to me - such movies always seem to involve a lot of violence. I had not read much about the Avatar phenomenon and I only went after two trusted friends pressed me to go. They were right. Avatar is a beautiful film with an inspiring message.

However what inspires me most is that a film with this kind of message is able to reach more people in the world than any other movie before. The inspiration of Avatar is that there is another world where love rules and where relationships between people and between people and nature are fundamentally respected. And it is that world that after a violent battle prevails over the destructive disconnected greed of our present dominant culture. Avatar portrays the beauty of holism - that word that has defined the new age movement since the sixties. Holism attracted hippies then. It now attracts masses worldwide. That is the message of Avatar.

To be clear: holism is not some distant dream. It is our everyday reality. We live in an interconnected world. That has always been the case. Ancient cultures were aware of that. Whatever is left of those still live by these principles today. It is only our Cartesian perspectives from the past few centuries that have spread a different message: that we can chop up reality and make a lot of money while selling the pieces. It has been an overwhelming and intoxicating message that still rules the world from Wall Street to the slums of Sao Paulo and from hunger and disease in Africa to environmental pollution.

It was science that led Descartes and his contemporaries to the fragmented approach of reality. Yet modern science is increasingly telling a different story. In the past decades scientific discoveries in physics and medicine have presented more and more proof of the interconnected reality of our existence. Since Einstein, in the past century, science is telling us that we are living in a holistic world indeed."

more:
http://www.odemagazine.com/blogs/intelligent_optimist/14114/avatar_and_its_holistic_promise

[msongs]

6. without the effects avatar would be just nother B movie lol nt

[jmowreader]

10. Avatar wasn't going to win. Too many special effects

I was born in 1963. In my lifetime, only Forrest Gump, Titanic, Gladiator and The Return of the King won Best Picture with any substantial amount of SFX. And Titanic was largely SFX-free.

[liberation]

14. Huh... no Titanic was not SFX-free at all. In fact it is viewed as a landmark movie in SFX

Technically, the best SFXs are those that aren't noticeable... ;-)

[Javaman]

29. So a gigantic ship splitting in half isn't special effects?

If you chart Cameron's career, it's all about special effects. He has said so himself. He has said time after time that with each of his very linear movies that he wants to push the technology envelope with each of his films.

This isn't some major revelation dropping from the sky.

For titanic, women went to see the story, guys wanted to see the ship sink.

That's reality.

And to say it's not a special effects movie, is avoiding the glaring reality of it's presentation.

It's called the titanic. when you ask people they say it's a giant boat that sank, not a moment in history about two goofy people in love.

[jmowreader]

35. I didn't say the whole movie was SFX-free

Get out that God-awful movie and watch it again. The first act (everything up to visiting the 100-year-old Rose) is pure SFX. The third act (the ship sinking) is pure SFX. But in the middle? Maybe some of the background images like the boiler room, but overall it was just nice set dressing.

[Xenotime]

18. What have you heard?

[Javaman]

30. Nothing. One producer took out a very vague ad regarding...

how they want Hurt Locker to win over other movies that cost 300 million+. The academy banned the producer from attending, because that type of talk, although vague, alluded to Avatar. Thus showing bad sportsmanship.

I find that really funny because until the movies are announced and right after the awards, any filmmaker can go on and slam any movie they want. LOL

Beyond that, there isn't really a whole lot other than the US military didn't want to be associated with the film because they weren't going to get that "feel good over blown testosterone high good image" they so desperately want. Yet they have no problem helping crappy ass movies like "transformers 2" LOL

More manufactured BS. All movies have their "likers" and their "haters". And all slams against them are always a plus. Anything that puts you in the papers, good or bad, is always a good thing. LOL

[onehandle]

34. The producers spammed Academy voters with emails. A big no-no.

For that they were banned from attending the awards.

Additionally, two soldiers are suing them for not getting credit for their stories. One says that one of the characters 'is him.'

[marshall]

45. The white man's burden is a very old theme

It works well with the masses, but those who actuall start thinking about what it means develop a different opinion.

[demosincebirth]

3. Great film. Too bad it didn't play in many theaters. I guess they figured

many of us 'Murcans are too dumb to appreciate good movies.

[Javaman]

32. Knowing how film distribution works...

this movie was slated to fail or vanish. Plenty of smaller movies get a much bitter distribution. One sign of certain death for a picture the distributor doesn't like is to release it after the holidays, in the contractually amounted theaters, and to give it the minimal amount of advertising.

There was something certainly going on behind the scenes here with no doubt.

What saved this movie is two things.

One, it went to video quickly and generated a huge buzz via netflix. Two, the producers and director when full on with one line promotion.

The power of netflix as a buzz creator is still in it's infancy. Any smart director or producer of a small film now, will cut a deal that allows them a fast tracked release via netflix.

Put your film in a theater, as required by the Academy for Oscar contention, then blitz it on Netflix. Much much cheaper that way.

Plus it's a lot easier to control the message that way.

Good thing it was a good film, in the end, it's the writing that wins the movie the oscar.

[demosincebirth]

36. All of the real good films, I've noticed, play only in the "Cine-art" theaters in

in the Cities. I have to go to Oakland to see the best films, even though we have two movie houses in town. I guess they figure we are dumbed-downed here in the 'burbs

[Javaman]

37. Well that and...

the collapse of the independent distributor.

Prior to the indie revolution that started in the mid 80's, there were categories of films, if you will.

Teen films, adult drama, adult comedy, etc.

But there was a subtle change that took place in the 80's. A new money centric demographic began to emerge. Basically, teens with money. However it arose, teens suddenly had enormous spending power.

And as such, the majors saw a market to tap into. It was then that began the slow degradation of film subject matter from adult themed stories to more teen oriented subjects.

As the teen oriented movies, grew up, so to say, the adult themed movies fell by the waste side. As special effects became more complex and computer oriented effects made their debut, story driven subject matter took a back seat.

People were still making adult themed movies but market groups via testing audiences (which were done mostly in malls) found that there was a bridge to be made in films that could generate huge amounts of money if films were teen/adult themes.

With the advent and fall out of video tape rentals and home recording, the film industry paid big money for this research.

And thus began the push for movies with huge effects budgets and small writing budgets.

Along comes Miramax, whom at the time, was very very different from the major studios. They didn't make the movies just distribute the ones the majors wouldn't touch. The smaller movies wouldn't be cost effective for the majors to make.

But why make them? Let the film makers finance the films on what was considered shoe string budgets and then let the distributors do the rest. (budgets of 50k to 2 million).

As time wore on, the majors began to notice that Miramax was actually making money. The majors spun off their own "indie" distributors. The bidding wars began. Outrageous sums of money were paid for independent films. Then it moved to the scripts themselves. But then to hedge their bets, Miramax strayed from their own formula and started demanding stars to be attached to scripts. Budgets got larger and larger.

Then Miramax was bought up by Disney. The game changed once again.

The other studios were seemingly catching up to Miramax but now that Miramax had the money from Disney, they now, via Harry and Bob Weinstein's insanely intense personalities, began buying up all sorts of scripts and films over and above asking price.

Miramax, now a Disney entity, spun off their own "indie" label, Dimension films. (Bob Weinstien ran that)

By 2000, Miramax, started to show some cracks. No longer content being a distributor, Miramax went into the film production biz.

They were successful for a short while, but now needing more and more hits to pay for their out of control prices for scripts, Miramax was barely breaking even.

By 2005, it was basically dead. On paper it appeared to be a very attractive company, but in reality, it was hemorrhaging money. (It went on the chopping block this past winter)

Most of this was due to Harvey Weinstein's colossally abrasive personality. There were those that still would work for him, but by and large he alienated a huge segment of the filmmaking community.

His brother Bob, was still doing very well with Dimension films. (Bob was no saint, either)

In 2005, Harvey walked away from Miramax and started Weinstein films (or productions, I forget which).

In film land, most if not all the once upon a time "independent" distributors had either been absorbed by the majors or basically vanished.

There are still a few out there, but certainly not the powerhouse that Miramax once was.

I think that there is a unspoken agreement out there that there won't be another Miramax allowed again for sometime. It cost the studios major bucks to catch up.

There is certainly a status quo now in Hollywood regarding filmmaking.

This is just a basic summary of what is going on out there, I could go on in much greater length.

I will leave off with this. Hollywood is currently going throw another massive spasm. It has to do with the internet. But unlike the video tape revolution, this one can't be as easily controlled. This is why, there are all sorts of law suits going on with licensing rights, etc. It has less to do with property rights than it does trying to control the message or content.

The film studios see the writing on the wall, but much like the music industry regarding file sharing, they arel also trying their best to be the rule makers.

The sad thing is, with the advent of the new "3-D" movies, I see that as the dying reflexes of an industry that is having a very hard time dealing with change.

Luckily, the film industry has constant turn over and perhaps the new younger blood will understand what is going on and roll with the punches.

I've worked in film for over 20 years. It's been one hell of a ride.

[demosincebirth]

42. Very informative. You hit the nail right on the head. Thanks.

[HeresyLives]

7. Congrats to Bigelow!

[liquid diamond]

8. I loved the movie. It avoids politics and focuses on the soldier.

Think about how every other "Iraq" movie has flopped.

[agent46]

11. The Oscars are over. I feel so empty. n/t

[old mark]

12. Hurt Locker is a great movie and deserved the award. nt

[Rapier09]

13. Beautiful movie

Captured the essence of the conflict.

[MrModerate]

15. "The Hurt Locker" didn't actually stink, but it's certainly not a "best" anything.

Let's forget the risable ignorance of military protocol. Let's forgive the mind-numbing unreality of the lead character's behavior. Let's glide over the stumbling and cadence-free plot. Let's even give the screenwriter a pass on a script that drops characters into an inferno from which they emerge completely unchanged.

What's unforgivable is the emotional mendaciousness of the movie. There wasn't an instant of honesty to be found. If was a total phony. There're really good reasons no one is going to this movie: it's barely worth seeing.

I saw only five of the movies on the Best Picture list. The other four (Avatar, Up, Inglorius Basterds, and District 9) were all much better than The Hurt Locker; truer, more artful, more moving, and more fun.

I think we all know why THL won: Hollywood wasn't going to give Cameron another chance to rub their faces in the fact that his movies -- as middlebrow as they may be -- inevitably kick butt when you put them in front of audiences. So they picked the criterati's favorite, which audiences have rejected in droves.

Ya know what? The audiences are generally right (and all the Hollywood movers and shakers know it, and they hate it).

[jayfish]

19. I Don't Know What Movie You Saw But...

that's not the "Hurt Locked" I watched. That being said I didn't like the ending. Kinda cut out the two supporting characters stories. I liked them just as much as the main character.

Jay

[Captain Hilts]

23. Uh, I live in the military community and there is a lot about it that is realistic. It's a suspense

film. I'm not aware of 'fun' being one of the criteria for Best Picture.

[Javaman]

33. some people don't like to think...

Hurt Locker was a great film, especially if you include the fact that the US military didn't want anything to do with it. It wasn't "feel good" for them enough.

I enjoy movies that step outside allowable conventions to tell it's story. Of all the movies the other poster mentioned, Hurt Locker is the only one that doesn't follow traditional story telling and that is why it won.

We get so much formulaic tripe these days, and frankly, it's pretty damn insulting.

I listen to a particular podcast called "the business". On a recent episode they went on in length as to the dearth of adult drama in the theaters. Sadly, they are correct ot a point. The issue at hand is, unless the movie has a Meryl Streep in it, an adult drama won't get wide release and be relegated to the "art house" theater.

We are suffering from the "teening" of our mainstream story telling in current "big" pictures".

I like the explosion movie of the week as much as the next person, but I can only take so many twinkies, I need a piece of meat every now and then. Hurt Locker provides that. Something I can sink my teeth into.

Viewing audiences today, have been so completely dumbed down, not by the film makers, but by the distributors that are out to make money. And the demographic they aim at today, is the teen set. This is why the majority of films in the theater chains today, are pretty damn linear and have lots of flash.

As usual, writing and "art" are now something for the fringe set of adult tastes, when in fact we just want something that doesn't insult our intelligence.

I'm hoping that the win by "The Hurt Locker" will usher in a new "indie" movement, but alas, since all of the Indie distributors have been absorbed by the majors, I believe my hopes will be dashed.

[Captain Hilts]

41. The US military more often than not does not 'endorse' or cooperate with films. That doesn't mean it

isn't good or is/isn't accurate.

They would not cooperate with "The Russians Are Coming, the Russians Are Coming." Or "Crimson Tide." etc. It doesn't mean anything.

[Javaman]

46. LOLOLOL

I worked closely with a Lt Fuches in Los Angeles, he was the liaison for the military to the film industry. You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

[MrModerate]

40. The grit is real. The marking time part is real.

And while "fun" is not a requirement of best movies, it certainly is a significant factor. Movies -- even serious movies -- are entertainment. The fun of a serious movie usually comes from the intensity of your involvement. One abandons "fun" at one's peril.

As THL's anemic box office numbers demonstrate.

[zonkers]

39. Ultimately, Bigelow is not a great and natural storyteller.

[Javaman]

47. And you base this one what? One movie?

Have you even watched any of her other films?

That kind of blanket statement only points out your ignorance when it comes to 1)script writing 2)pre-production 3)directing 4) production 5)post-production 6)promotion.

And since you choose not to give any examples to prove your point I'm going to now put you on ignore.

Cheers! :)

[zonkers]

48. Strange Days, Widowmaker. I liked Near Dark. Wait, I'm on ignore, why am I even answering you

[Dawgs]

17. Best of 2010; which isn't saying much.

It was entertaining. That's the best I can do.

[zonkers]

38. Forget about Bigelow being a woman, this just proves you can make shitty film after shitty film bu

but if you keep it up, you get better, learn more and end up making what I hear is a pretty good film (not a great film, mind you). Actually, last film I remember liking of hers was Near Dark about a gillion years ago. I got dragged to Strange Days -- and found it corny and moronic -- a point validated by it irrelevance today. I heard Widoewmaker was lame. Blue Steel. Big deal. Morale of all this: stick to it, whatever you do.

[Synicus Maximus]

43. If they had spent more than $3.98 on the script for Avatar they

may have had a chance for an award.